IRWIN SCHIFF AND WIKI DECEPTION

The following is an excerpt from a conversation I’ve been having with a tax lawyer/CPA regarding the Wikipedia “article” on a famous tax protester and libertarian, Irwin Schiff. Here is the Schiff article: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff) When I tried as a Wiki editor to add some insight from my personal knowledge of Irwin to the Schiff article, a tax lawyer-CPA who goes by the name of Famspear on the Web and is also a prolific Wiki editor objected to my edit for not conforming to Wikipedia’s rules for creating and editing articles. When such disagreements occur between two editors, a “User talk page” is the forum for arguing whether the change should be allowed or not. In this case the talk page is mine and is captioned “User talk:Ned Netterville.” Here is the link to that page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ned_Netterville) If you scroll down to where you see in larger letters, “Irwin Schiff (edit),” my conversation with Famspear begins there, and the portion I’ve excerpted begins immediately following a line that is drawn across the page further down. What you read here was copied from that page, but I have made a few minor alterations to correct typos, grammatical and punctuation errors, etc., and to add detail where I felt it was needed for clarity among Liberty.me readers.

One of my reasons for posting this on Liberty.me is to show the liberty minded folks at the site that statists abound (as if you didn’t know:), and are hard at work slanting many Wikipedia articles to favor the statists’ positions, even though articles are in theory and according to the rules to be written from a “Neutral Point Of View.” (NPOV) What this means is that if there are divergent points of view, both should be fairly represented. Of course if no one but statists are writing the articles, libertarian points of view will remain unknown.

Anyone can become a Wiki editor. It is easy and fun to create or edit an article on a subject with which you are familiar, and have it posted on Wikipedia. Or if you see something that is wrong or misrepresented in an article, you can correct it. All that you need to do is learn the rules for editors and then have at it. I’ve had several of my edits deleted only because I failed to follow the rules. I’ll do better on that score in the future.

I also hope people who read this will learn a little of the truth about Irwin Schiff, a true American patriot and the most courageous libertarian I have ever known, who has been smeared by the government and the beneficiaries of the income, SS and employment tax scams. Any person capable of understanding the Constitution who will take the trouble to read Irwin Schiff’s 1985 book, THE GREAT INCOME TAX HOAX, will come away convinced that the manner by which the government collects these taxes does not conform to the Constitution, thus, my calling it a scam is not hyperbole.

Famspear: I’m going to answer some of the questions you asked me earlier because I think they will tell you where I am coming from on the subjects of Irwin Schiff and his take as well as my own on what both Schiff and I believe(d) is the unconstitutional manner in which employment taxes—income, SS, etc.—are enforced in order to collect them, and because they are direct taxes levied without apportionment as required by the Constitution.

I personally have no regard for the Constitution for reasons pointed out by such legal scholars as Lysander Spooner, who posited: “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing…” He goes into much greater detail as to why the Constitution is a dead letter. (http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm) I also concur in the opinion of Professor John Hasnas, expressed in his essay, the title of which describes his thesis, THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW. (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf) It appears evident to me, that federal judges who receive paid salaries and “Cadillac” benefits from the federal government, which are derived from tax revenues, uphold the Constitution only when it is convenient for members of the government hierarchy. However, because the federal judiciary and almost all lawyers rotely proclaim the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and staunchly uphold the myth that it is universally honored by the federal judiciary, I will state my objections to income and employment taxes (SS tax, unemployment compensation tax, etc.) and your arguments here for its authority as though it really was enforced by the courts, rather than ignored when it proves inconvenient to the government’s revenues, which has been the case since the very first case involving a federal tax was ruled on by the Supreme Court. However, with the advent of the Civil War, the Constitution’s safeguards against government tyranny by taxation have fallen like lake-effect snow in Buffalo, NY. (“War,” observed Randolph Bourne perceptively, “is the health of the state.” (http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm)

My 1971 tax return, the first one I had filed without the assistance of a CPA firm. was audited by the IRS. I was notified that my business income and deductions would be the subject of the audit. That year my only “business” was buying and selling stocks. My only other “income” was two weeks or a month’s salary from an employer I no longer worked for. When the IRS agent arrived, I was subjected to what I now know was a “full field audit,” as opposed to an audit of my business income and expenses only. I have since learned that the deceitful manner it was sprung on me violated IRS rules for agents conducting such audits. (https://www.irs.gov/uac/the-examination-audit-process) The agent spent several hours going over and asking for an explanation of every receipt of money or deposit or investment I had made that year, and every purchase and expenditure for me and my family personally as well as for my “business,” which was limited to trading stocks and hardly worthy of being called a business. During that year I had made a trip to Australia with the objective of investing in a farm, business or other opportunity. However, I was much put off by the advanced state of socialism in Australia and returned having only invested about $8000 in a stock recommended to me by a broker in Sidney who I knew personally. I had deducted a large part of my expenses for that trip. The agent said the expenses could not be deducted. I argued, showing him a section of the Code that appeared to me to make the deduction legitimate, while he pointed to a section that could be interpreted to mean the opposite. He departed saying he would take it up with his supervisor. I was subsequently notified that the deduction was disallowed and I was “assessed” additional tax, interest and penalty of about $250, which I felt was completely arbitrary and set at a dollar figure to adequately compensate the government for the time its agent had spent on the audit, but not so high that it would pay for me to contest the IRS’s ruling, which I supposed would require hiring a tax lawyer. The $250 was a negligible sum in relation to my income that year or the previous few years. However, the experience of being subjected to a wanton breach of my privacy, and of having to answer questions about my personal financial affairs from a so-called public servant, whose demeanor throughout was supercilious, was an excruciating, humiliating ordeal. I determined I would never again allow such a flagrant violation of my privacy to be done to me by the government. That arbitrarily “adjusted” tax return is the last return I ever filed, whether federal, state or local. That $250 is the last income tax I ever paid. Thus have I avoided audit humiliation.

The IRS, being a bumbling bureaucracy, didn’t catch up with my refusal to file until late in 1982. An agent stopped by my house when I wasn’t home and left his card asking me to call him. When I did he wanted to know why I hadn’t filed returns for the years 1976, 77, 78. 79, 80, and 81. I told him that I didn’t owe any taxes for those years. (I believe I had by then read Schiff’s book, HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES.) The agent informed me I would nevertheless have to file returns for those years and allowed that I could have two weeks to do so. Within two weeks I sent the agent 1040 forms for those six years on which I printed in big bold letters, “I CANNOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED HEREIN, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY WILL ASSURE ME THAT IN SO DOING ALL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL REMAIN INVIOLATE.” Treasury never provided me with that assurance, and I never provided Treasury with any of the requested information nor any money in the succeeding 44 years. Thus, it indisputable: employment taxes cannot be collect if one’s constitutional rights are respected. It appears by Treasury’s failure to take me up on my multiple quid pro quos that the IRS silently concurs.

So you see, Famspear, I’ve been about this business of resisting taxes for substantially longer that you have been a practicing tax lawyer. I stopped filing or paying those employment taxes even before Irwin Schiff did. Furthermore, my quid-pro-quo offer to Treasury was a manner of responding to Treasury’s income-tax hoax, as Irwin called it, which was original with me rather than something proposed by Irwin Schiff. It was, however, influenced by Irwin’s suggestion of filing “a Fifth Amendment return,” which I think was contained in his book, HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES. (https://www.amazon.com/Irwin-Schiffs-Anyone-Paying-Income/dp/0930374037) So if you mean by the word “follower,” which you’ve been using here, a person who has been influenced by Irwin Schiff in resisting the IRS, then count me proudly in. Because the manner in which the IRS goes about enforcing the income tax violates several Articles of the Bill of Rights, I feel my quid-pro-quo is more inclusive and broadly protective of my rights than one limited to asserting the 5thAmendment’s requirement of due process alone.

The IRS did its usual best to frighten me into complying, but to no avail. Its agents did manage to steal a total of about $550 to $600 dollars from two banks where I had checking accounts. Those banks gave the IRS my money without the requisite court order. (See the 5th Amendment.) Fortunately, I was able to recoup most of that amount. I sued both banks in state courts. The attorney for one of the banks wisely and quickly offered to settle for $500, which was more than was taken from that bank, so I accepted. The other bank’s outside counsel, presumably more concerned for running up their fee than for their client’s welfare, successfully defended through trial, appellate, and state supreme courts. Those victories for the tax lawyers were, I must presume, paid for by their client. You can guess better than I what a prestigious law firm would have charged their bank client for their “services.” I would gladly have settled with that bank for $500 as well, and called it a win-win outcome.

Because of the experience of having money stolen from me by those feckless banksters conspiring with the IRS, I had to give up a good resume-writing business in which I was engaged at the time, because most of my customers paid by check or credit card, requiring me to use a bank. The easy reach of IRS agents into any and every financial institution, all of which are deeply in thrall to the government, make the business of resisting unlawful federal taxes a many faceted occupation requiring some ingenuity to be able to retain the fruits of one’s labors.

I also spent 34 days in jail for “civil contempt” of court for refusing a district judge’s unlawful order to comply with an “IRS Collection Summons.” Again, the IRS had no court judgment against me for the money it was demanding. (Does everyone see the Constitution’s safeguards of liberty being flushed down the toilet by that judge’s prosecution, conviction and sentencing of me without even an indictment or trial or pretense of due process?) After 34 rather enjoyable days in three local jails, I agreed to comply as ordered so I could be home for Memorial Day. Thus, I was forced to agree to “produce my financial records and give testimony under oath” to the IRS. To this day I recall with pleasure the disappointment of the two IRS agents who evidently were sure that I would have a wealth of information to reveal after being brought to heel by a stay in jail. I presume they also thought I was hiding valuable assets or I wouldn’t have gone to jail to avoid revealing the location of my fortune. Fortuitously, I had no records to produce, having stopped keeping financial records back in 1972. However, being forced to testify under oath (affirmation) was almost as excruciating as that long-ago audit ordeal. I was compensated to a degree by the agents’ palpable chagrin at learning nothing that would facilitate their desire to plunder me. (Sidelight: In one of the city jails where I was held there were two other “federal” prisoners on drug charges. By my second day with them, they were sufficiently assured I wouldn’t “narc” them that they offered me some of their Jack Daniels Black Label and high-grade marijuana, which the wife of one of them brought into the jail regularly under the intentionally blind eye of the jailers. Ah, the integrity of public servants made manifest:)

That testifying ordeal was my last personal contact with any IRS personnel after a series of earlier encounters with agents trying to persuade me to obey. Subsequently, I continued sending Treasury 1040s with my quid-pro quo for many years. In due course the IRS would notify me by mail that I had been fined $500–without due process–for “filing a frivolous tax return.” Of course I never paid those unlawful fines since I knew they were levied in violations of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. I often wonder if I set a record for frivolous-return fines?

Today the government’s unenforceable frivolous-return fine has been increased to $5000! (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6702 ) Wow! By ten times! There must have been a lot of people like me ignoring the smaller fine. I wonder if my casual dismissal of all those smaller fines provoked the increase? Unfortunately, that exponentially larger fine may discourage some would-be tax resisters who are not sufficiently committed, or not aware as I was that such unlawful fines needn’t be paid and can’t be collected—as long as the Constitution means what it says, and as long as one can avoid the bankster-IRS raiders. Of course If my own experience means anything, counting on the government to obey the Constitution is akin to poisonous-snake handling—you may or may not get bit. When government operatives think they can get away with something forbidden by the Constitution, which will profit them, they will do so in a New York minute, explicit constitutional prohibitions to the contrary notwithstanding.

At the outset of my duels with the IRS, I was enraged with the agency and the agents who confronted me. By the grace of God, at about the same time the enforcement measures of the IRS were greatest, I had been studying the Gospels, becoming persuaded Jesus knew what he was talking about. His counsel in his Sermon on the Mount to “love your enemies, pray for your persecutors” sounded apropos to my tax situation, so I began praying for the IRS and its agents. It worked! As a direct result, the IRS is no longer an enemy; none of its agents persecute me. Amazing! Miraculous! No?

Because of the weasel ways of the IRS, its agents also talked to my wife about her “tax liability.” For several years she had been separately filing and paying taxes obediently. The IRS bogeymen coming after her scared the hell out of her. She was already unhappy with me for my own foray into tax resistance. When IRS agents contacted her and mentioned me, she was outraged at both them and me. While I was being moved from jail to jail during those 34 days, a process server was trying unsuccessfully to find me and serve me divorce papers. I’ve since learned that frightening spouses and other family members is a favorite tactic the IRS uses to prod tax protesters into “compliance” (viz., obedience). Our marriage was heading south at the time anyway, and the fact of our divorce, which I hadn’t wanted, turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Fortunately, our youngest child was close to adulthood at the time and soon headed off to college, so he only missed out on a resident father for a short period.

It should go without question that forced or coerced taxes extort people’s property, so I do my level best not to willingly or voluntarily consume any amenities or benefits derived from said extortion. Do I use public roads? Of course, because I am essentially forced to do so by the government’s insidious monopoly of road building. Do I accept Social Security and Medicare benefits to which I am “legally entitled,” because for twenty years in my ignorant youth, before I wised up to the SS scheme, I paid SS taxes? In fact, no, I don’t. Merely because I was forced to pay into SS does not justify me relying on government to force others to pay for my benefits. By renouncing SS and Medicare benefits for 14 years, I have undoubtedly passed up a fair sum of money I could certainly use, but whatever the amount the trade-off has been well worth it. I am not a government dependent as so many in my age group are, and I am not an accessory to what I deem to be an extortion racket. Unlike many of my peers, I have retained my integrity and independence. Government dependency through one “social-welfare” program or another, like all dependencies—alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex or what have you—is a terrible plague inflicting many Americans. And then there is this, which I think is related: I have not been to a doctor nor taken a prescription drug in the last 34 years, with the single exception of taking about 10 amoxicillian (antibiotic) my wife had in the medicine cabinet when I had a reaction to a tick bite. Amazing? Miraculous? Certainly better than having Medicare (or Obama Care) and, as a consequence, needing it.

So you see, Famspear, as a result of my relationship to employment taxes, neither paying the taxes nor voluntarily consuming tax-paid benefits, I think it is fair to say I can speak from a more “neutral point of view” on matters of taxation than those who do pay taxes or those who reap benefits from tax revenues or the tax laws. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now a few words about my personal relationship with Irwin Schiff. I met Irwin when he spoke at a Libertarian Party state convention, I think it was in the early or mid-1980s. I subsequently saw him once or maybe twice in the next two decades when he came to my hometown to put on one of his seminars. I had lunch with him on one of these occasions. He picked up the check. As I recall, it was at that lunch I suggested to Irwin he run for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States as a way to get his message about the income tax across to a larger audience. Then, by pure coincidence, I was in New Hampshire when Irwin came there to campaign in the primary for the LP nomination for president. I guess this would have been 1995. I had ridden my bike to NH to visit my daughter and grandson. When I learned Schiff would be speaking at a candidates’ forum in Manchester, NH, I had Wendy drive me over there to hear him. After he spoke, I met with Irwin who was traveling with an older gentleman friend of his from Pittsburgh whose name escapes me. They were travelling together in Schiff’s car and neither one of them liked driving those New Hampshire roads. Since I had time on my hands, I offered to be their chauffer if Irwin would cover my expenses. So for four or five days and nights solid I was with Irwin as he spoke in several NH towns, culminating with a speech at the Balsalms Grand Resort Hotel in Dixville Notch, NH. Irwin had made hotel reservations along the way in two-bedroom suites for him and his buddy, and I slept on the living-room couch. We ate breakfast, lunch and dinner together, occasionally joined by local LP members or fans of Irwin. What I learned about Irwin in those days was that he was a kind-hearted gentleman, generous with his money (great tipper), considerate of others, entertaining and extremely funny, often performing magic tricks for his lunch or dinner guests, for which he invariably paid the bill. He was an inveterate talker who would dominate conversations with the happy acquiescence of his companions because he had a lot of good things to say. Here is a website with three video tributes to Irwin Schiff. See especially the last one featuring an interview with Irwin explaining his thesis regarding the constitutional definition of income: (http://freeirwinschiff.org/)Unfortunately the interviewer didn’t know enough to shut up and let Schiff tell his story without interruption, instead Injecting many inane observations. YouTube provides many more Schiff videos.

I never purchased any of Irwin Schiff’s tapes or other material except two or three of his books. (I also received one or two others as gifts.) When Schiff was under heavy attack from the government in the early years of the new century, I sent him unsolicited a check for $1000—no strings attached—and offered to come to Vegas to assist in his legal battles. I am an accomplished “writ writer,” and I thought I might be able to help him. I was a bit perturbed because I never received a thanks or even acknowledgement from Irwin, which was out of character, but today I understand that what the government was doing to him at the time would make even a saint neglectful of basic courtesies.

With that as background on my tax situation, and on my personal relationship with Irwin Schiff, here are the problems I have with some of the things you have argued on this Irwin Schiff Wikipedia “talk page:”

Famspear, you wrote: “In fact, as far as it is known, no follower of Irwin Schiff has ever been acquitted of federal tax crimes…he has the dubious distinction of having had the highest number of followers convicted.” This is a sophisticated or sophist’s argument in the sense defined at vocabulary.com: “A sophist is someone who makes good points about an issue — until you realize those points aren’t entirely true, like a political candidate who twists an opponent’s words or gives misleading facts during a speech.” (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sophist)

Famspear, your argument is misleading because evidently only fourteen of Schiff’s “followers” were ever charged and convicted of tax crimes (http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/irwin-schiff), whereas Schiff likely had tens of thousands of “followers” who, like me, stopped paying the federal income tax but were never charged nor convicted of any crimes whatsoever. After all, combined sales of his books on the federal government’s income tax hoax and Social Security tax swindle, as he called them, totaled several hundreds of thousands. Also, there was a period of time when he was a repeat guest on popular national television and radio talk shows proclaiming his thesis that the income tax was illegal and need not be paid. Furthermore, Schiff was charged by the government with earning millions of dollars from the sales of his books and other anti-tax materials, so the number of his “followers” purchasing his advice had to be substantial. No other of the many “illegal-tax protester,” as the IRS used to call us before Congress told them to stop, has had anything close to the number of “followers” as Irwin Schiff had. Thus, fourteen is a miniscule number of convictions out of his many, many “followers.”

When Schiff published his last book, THE FEDERAL MAFIA, HOW THE IT (viz., the IRS) ILLEGALLY IMPOSES AND UNLAWFULLY COLLECTS INCOME TAXES (https://www.amazon.com/Federal-Mafia-Illegally-Unlawfully-Collects/dp/0930374096) , and with tens of thousands of copies sold in addition to his other books and material, government tax enforcers evidently panicked and felt they had to crush Irwin Schiff to silence him, or be crushed by a major tax revolt already brewing The government, by means of a court injunction, prohibited Schiff or his publisher from selling his nonfiction book, an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and a free press, something the government has never done to any other author before or since. Then a federal judge, also presiding in violation of his ethical Code of Conduct, sentenced Irwin, who was 78 years old, to fourteen years in prison, which, as the judge knew it would, turned out to be a death sentence. A New York Times obituary provides a reasonably accurate portrait of a remarkable libertarian. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/yourtaxes/irwin-schiff-fervent-opponent-of-federal-income-taxes-dies-at-87.html)

Irwin died of cancer while still a prisoner shackled to a hospital bed on October 16, 2015. In a stirring tribute to this courageous American hero, former Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul referred to Irwin as “a real gentleman,” “absolutely sincere and probably right on all his arguments about the Constitution and the tax code.” Quoting H.L. Menken, Paul suggested Schiff fit Menken’s description of, “The most dangerous man to any government…the man who is able to think things out without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.” (http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-10-20/irwin-schiff-a-most-dangerous-man/)

Famspear, you said of Schiff, in regards to those few of his “followers” who were jail by the federal government: “Helping to ruin other people’s lives is also something he should not have been proud of.” With all due respect, that is utter drivel? Schiff didn’t “help” send anyone to jail, rather he counseled people on how to avoid being imprisoned. He may have saved me from prison. The federal government alone imprisoned those people. To suggest that Schiff’s followers–your choice of words, not mine–followed Irwin like a bunch of lemmings is ludicrous. As someone who has had the temerity to go up against the IRS with its army of lawyers and armed agents, I can assure you that no one becomes an “illegal-tax protester” and Schiff “follower” without due consideration of the possibly adverse consequences. The threat of jail is one of the government’s well-advertised, primary weapons to frighten American taxpayers into servile obedience, forcing them to “voluntarily comply” with an undecipherable tax code exactly as they are told, and to just pay up without thinking or protesting. Evidently hundreds of millions of Americans are persuaded by the government’s intimidation, but that does not mean all, nor even a small minority of taxpayers would voluntarily comply if they weren’t threatened with jail and impoverishment. I hope readers of this page will watch the following video for a most revealing discussion with the former Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, on the idiotic oxymoron, “voluntary compliance.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg)

Famspear, I hope you’ll watch this video too. Harry Reid argues that being forced to pay taxes is voluntary. Harry “proves” being forced is acting voluntarily by repeatedly and forcefully declaring that being forced to do something is voluntary. Since he can’t logically dispute the factual, forcible nature of the income tax system, Harry practically shouts, “The fact of the matter is that our system IS A VOLUNTARY SYSTEM!” In my 45 years of experience dealing with beneficiaries of the tax defending the federal-income-tax hoax, I find Harry’s logic is precisely the logic behind all of the tax consumers’ justifications for using force to obtain their daily bread. Here are a two other video calling the legality and morality our income-tax system into question by reputable people including “reformed” IRS agents and supervisors. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdNCz_7Qo0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqqksUEWAW8)

Famspear, you argued here, “And, no, you’re not “correcting” the record. You’re repeating frivolous tax protester arguments. The idea that because federal judges are paid from the U.S. Treasury, they can’t be impartial in a Federal tax case is blatant nonsense. This is garbage that tax protesters have already tried in court. A judge’s impartiality cannot be “reasonably questioned” in a tax case merely because the judge is paid from the Treasury.”

Famspear, Allow me to rewrite that last sentence of yours to reflect reality, so you can better see the absurdity of what you are claiming: “A judge cannot possibly be impartial in a tax case just because his income is derived from same taxes that are the subject matter of the case, or because his employer just happens to be one of the parties in every tax case. Fam, my argument isn’t frivolous. It is those federal Judges who treat their own ethical Code of Conduct as frivolous, because the judges’ own ethical code clearly mandates that they disqualify themselves from presiding in tax-protester cases. When they fail to do so, their frivolity becomes criminal.

Famspear, with all due respect, your arguments here sound exactly like Harry Reid’s in that video. Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges disproves your contention, and I have quoted from it word for word without adding any “interpretation,” for the Code speaks for itself: “Canon 3, Section (C) Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:…(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;…”

Let the readers of Wikipedia judge for themselves whether or not the Code’s mandate applies to cases where the judge is paid by one of the parties (the United States) using revenues from the very same taxes the other party is protesting, and whether or not a judge in such cases has “a financial interest in the subject matter [and is] a party to the proceeding.” (http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges)

By the way, Famspear, can you cite a case wherein, as you say, “This is garbage that tax protesters have already tried in court.” I’d like to know who those tax protesters you refer to are, because I was sure the argument originated with me about the time I revealed it on Quatloos (http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2635) back in 2008. There is a chance I mentioned it elsewhere or to a few friends, but I did not mention it to any of my fellow illegal-tax protesters. I just went back and read that Quatloos thread for at the third time, and it is self-evident that no one over at Quatloos was able to dispute my analysis, which I, like Socrates, put in the form of a question. Your reference to my position on this as “blatant nonsense” certainly appears to be hyperbole, for the best you or the boys and girls at Quatloos could come up to dispute my position was., “No! Federal judges are impartial.” Well, here are some federal judges who were not so impartial who also treated their ethical Code as a frivolous. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges)

Famspear, you said, “Nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct [sic] supports the preposterous position you take.” Hmm, Famspear, as Ron Regan once famously said, “There you go again.” And again I must point out that the only position I’ve taken is taken verbatim from the Code of Conduct for US Judge. In other words, I have let the Code speak for itself—and for me. (But then, like you, I repeat myself.)

Famspear, you said of yourself, “My opinions are unbiased and honest.” With all due respect, how can your opinions possibly be unbiased on whether or not federal income and employment taxes are constitutional when you admit here that you “have earned a fortune over the years in my tax practice?”

Famspear, you said, “I use the term “fraudster” to describe Irwin Schiff. I can back that up with solid support.”

Famspear, I am sure you can’t back up that contemptible charge. Exclusive of federal tax-evasion and fraud cases in which I have shown here that the judges were obviously biased and should have been disqualified for having a vested financial interest in the outcome of the cases before them and the prosecution was also the judges’ employer, Schiff was never convicted of fraud in any state or federal court. You present no evidence Schiff ever committed fraud. Nor have you any solid support for describing him elsewhere as “a con.” And please don’t put forth any material from the government’s case banning him from selling his book THE FEDERAL MAFIA, which was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment by the contemptible judge. The judge who issued that injunction was sitting in violation of his ethical Code and conspiring with the party seeking the injunction, the United States (the same party who was paying the judge) to silence Irwin Schiff because his books, tapes and speeches were attracting so many followers and thereby threatening to provoke a major tax revolt. Your use of pejorative epithets when referring to Irwin Schiff is a way of expressing your feelings and your emotions. That won’t work with me nor in a Wiki article. The federal government’s ban on Irwin’s book may in time be recognized as an egregious judicial crime equivalent to the Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision declaring the negro slave Scott to be Sandford’s property. “The Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by scholars.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

Famspear, you wrote above, “Now, re-read Schiff’s exact words, Ned: “…obviously, ‘’corporate profit” is the only thing that can be taxable today under the 1954 Code. ” That is utter baloney. Schiff was a stiff-necked, arrogant criminal. He continued to use this nonsensical argument, no matter how many times the courts ruled it to be erroneous, in his case and in many other cases.”

Famspear, you also refer to Schiff’s impeccably correct understanding of the Internal Revenue Code with such epithets as “hilariously idiotic,” “utter baloney,” and “nonsensical,” but you do not attempt to rationally dispute Schiff’s contention. You justify calling Schiff’s arguments such names by citing the fact that “many times the courts ruled (Schiff) to be wrong.” Those courts you refer to were all presided over by compromised judges, and they all denied him the opportunity to elaborate his position to the juries or show them the Supreme Court cases he relied on for his position. Furthermore, not only do you take a few snippets of Schiff’s long and detailed explanation of what “income” is in the IR Code pursuant to Supreme Court rulings, you offer no evidence to show that Schiff was wrong in his understanding of what constitutes “income” pursuant to rulings of the Supreme Court. Can you substantiate wherein Schiff was wrong by showing me what the Supreme Court has said constitutes income for purposes of the IR Code, in contradistinction to Schiff’s understanding? You would be doing me a favor if you could also show me what statute or provision of the IR Code makes a person liable to pay a tax on one’s “income,” whatever that means.

Famspear. If you were fair minded and wanted to understand Schiff’s position, you would read Schiff’s book, the Great Income Tax Hoax, all 565 pages including many supporting documents and evidence in support of his charges against the government, and criticize it. For you to cherry pick a few lines out of context from Schiff’s elaborate understanding and thorough explanation of one of the most complex matters of law, and cite those few words as representing his magisterial exposé of what the government has done to its taxpayer-victims, and why he accurately calls it a hoax is, in a word, absurd.

Famspear, you wrote, “Schiff was a con artist. He claimed to believe that his writings on Federal tax law were correct—yet he was caught moving and hiding assets to evade having to pay taxes.”

Fam, This is one of the most transparently sophist arguments the tax establishment has used against Schiff and other tax protesters. Schiff obviously wasn’t moving assets to evade taxes because he didn’t owe any taxes. He was trying to preserve his property from thieves. Schiff didn’t believe he owed a dime in taxes, but he knew from prior experience that this wouldn’t deter the IRS from taking his property without due process of law. After all, the IRS had previously taken about a quarter of a million dollars of Schiff’s royalties as author of HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES from his publisher, Simon & Shuster, without any pretense of affording him due process before grabbing his money. With that experience in mind, it would be insane for Schiff—or anyone else–not to try to hide his wealth from a roving band of thieves. Rest assured that when my own boat comes in, I’ll tell the captain to steer clear of these shores where pirates abound and are in charge, and dock it at my residential pier in the Turk and Caicos Islands (a tax haven).

Famspear, that is all for now. Thank you for engaging. I’m grateful to you for drawing my attention to some of the desideratum of being a Wiki editor, a task to which I had previously given little or no thought, even though I had blunderingly made a few edits. Now that am a bit enlightened, thanks to you, I may get more involved. I notice you’ve been quite active as an editor particularly regarding articles on taxes and tax protesters, injecting the slant of one who has made a fortune from the tax laws. It is evident that the “other side” of tax issues has been poorly represented if at all on Wiki. If I live long enough and find the time, maybe I can correct that by bringing some balance to tax and tax protester articles from my obviously more neutral and enlightened point of view.

P.S. You are welcome to tell your friends at the IRS that I don’t have medical insurance either, as required by the Affordable Care Act’s legislation. I’d welcome an opportunity to show that enforcement of ACA is also unconstitutional and should be unenforceable if the Constitution means anything, but then again…

RIP, Irwin Schiff, you will be missed by liberty lovers.

Note: The Constitution of the United States empowers the government to collect two species of taxes: direct and indirect. And it limits the manner of collection of those taxes. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the citizens of the several states proportionally according to the most recent census. Indirect taxes must be uniform throughout all of the states. Although the difference between the two species of taxes and the reasons for the different modes of collecting them was well known and clearly understood by the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, today not one lawyer in 10,000, whether practicing constitutional law, sitting in Congress, serving in the Department of Justice, or sitting on a federal bench, can correctly explain the difference between the two taxes as understood by the Framers, nor explain why the two different modes of collecting them were prescribed by the framers. Go ahead. Ask your lawyer friends. In a future Liberty.me article, I will have Irwin Schiff, the most knowledgeable historian of U.S. taxes ever until his recent death, explain the differences.

Disciple of Jesus, Voluntaryist, Writer, "Tax Denier" (current IRS term) Illegal-Tax Protester (former IRS designation to which I added a hyphen to make what I protest clear), Founder, 2nd Abolition Movement rid American of the enslaving individual income tax.

Thank you, Rick. October 16th will be the first anniversary of his death. I’ve been rereading some of his books. His comprehension of the Constitution’s liberty protecting clauses, how they were designed to work, and how the government has essentially negated all of them was definitely one of h is strong points. He really was the most dangerous man the government has had to contend with in the last 50 years.